Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Friday, May 8, 2009, 1:30 PM

High-speed-rail official pushes back
Rod Diridon urges local communities to be patient

by Jay Thorwaldson
Palo Alto Weekly Staff

Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on May 8, 2009 at 2:49 pm

"The present schedule calls for engineering, environmental, economic and other impact studies to be complete in 2010, after which decisions will be made. Diridon said he is pushing to expedite those studies by six to eight months both to provide local residents and communities with solid information sooner..."

Standard trick: "expediting" the studies and moving the decision times up limits public input and keeps the opposition from getting organized. And it's all for our benefit, so the local residents and communities can receive solid information - read "their sentences" - sooner.

How considerate.

Posted by TheTruth, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 8, 2009 at 3:35 pm

Why dont you people listen and act civil and work with the Board instead of snide comments and scare tactics and lies.

Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on May 8, 2009 at 3:42 pm

That would be great, TT. Now if you'll please be fair and tell the Board to stop playing games with us, and it does, maybe we can get somewhere with this.

Posted by Palo Alto's sticky fingers, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on May 8, 2009 at 10:15 pm

If you do not expidite - you are actually dragging it on. Palo Alto's "so called smart" residents are very savy in dragging every project to the point that it is not viable.

We have examples abound.

This time Palo Alto should not mess with HSR. If it needs a presidential order to get Palo Alto out of it - so be it.

Posted by Mark, a resident of Menlo Park, on May 8, 2009 at 10:21 pm

But, Ron, the state will need not provide ongoing financial support for High Speed Rail, right? What an absolute farce this sort of news makes of any notion of HSR profitability. From Web Link:

"Financial difficulties for Caltrain are not new, but this year the agency finds itself in perhaps its worst economic scenario ever. Chief Financial Officer Virginia Harrington said the agency has used one-time funding measures to avoid running out of cash each of the last seven years, but this year those sources of revenue — including state transit assistance funds — have just about dried up.

"To make matters worse, after a record ridership growth in 2008, Caltrain is finally starting to experience ridership declines, which officials have attributed to rising unemployment, lowered gas prices and the January fare increase. Fares account for roughly half of Caltrain's revenue.

"And the agency's three county members — San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara — which contribute 43 percent of the agency's revenue, appear unlikely to increase their contributions to Caltrain because they have their own budget problems, Harvey said."

Posted by patient, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, on May 8, 2009 at 10:31 pm

I saw Rod Diridon stand before the PA city council, and state that the public can submit all the comments and letters about the myriad of concerns they have about the proposed hsr project, and that they (hsr authority) would be happy to get them. He also made it clear that the hsr authority was really under no obligation to do anything about these concerns, except note that they had been received, and ignore them. I also listened to the city council try to assert itself as a negotiating party with the hsr. Diridon made it perfectly clear to everyone there, though I'm still not sure the the city council fully understood, that hsr was not going to negotiate with anyone, period. For Diridonn to claim that the public simply needs to be patient, and that the sooner the rail is built the better, is simply absurd. The best thing for the cities to do that oppose hsr, is to quit wasting time with Diridon at hsr public forums, and take the hsr to a public forum in the courts. Diridon will not be able to dismiss the concerns of entire communities as simply a lack of patience there.

Posted by No to undergrounding, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 9, 2009 at 11:22 am

I'm not going to support tunneling HSR through Palo Alto, Atherton and Menlo Park - it's toooooo expensive.

Posted by wants the facts, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on May 9, 2009 at 12:51 pm

When people say tunneling is too expensive, they can only do so based on hearsay, not real numbers. When estimates are provided, they don't calculate the DIFFERENCES in cost -- it is how much MORE tunneling may cost compared to above ground that is the important figure. Then we have to assess whether or not that extra money is worth spending. Do I think the extra cost is worth the decreased noise, the decreased particle air pollution, the increase in property values vs. potential decrease in property values for those along the rail corridor, the elimination of a wall dividing Palo Alto, etc.? Probably, but I really won't know until the figures available are real.

A big question is whether this even a viable project and where any of the money will come from, tunnel or not. If CalTrain can't make it now, how can we believe this rail line can ever be self-supporting?

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 9, 2009 at 1:43 pm

I've heard different estimates on the tunneling. I remember one poster saying that it wasn't the tunneling that was that expensive, but the cost of the stations.

There's a lot to be said for tunneling if it's doable.

Posted by Morris Brown, a resident of Menlo Park, on May 9, 2009 at 10:43 pm

Diridon's time line is completely out of sync with what the Authority's hired consultant HTMB is telling us.

HTMB at the Friday meeting of the rail group in Palo Alto, clearly showed a time line on a slide that had 4th quarter of 2012 as when the project level EIR would be completed at the earliest. Again this is not 2010 as Diridon says it is 2 years later then that, the end of 2012.

Now Diridon, can wave his hands, shout, rant and rave all he wants, but as Senator Simitian's committee has requested, he should be prefacing all his remarks with "this is my personal agenda", not that of the Authority (even though I am on the Authority's board and can usually get the board to vote the way I want.

This time line can be confirmed by a number of PA council persons who were also attending. Diridon's 2010 time line is nonsense.

Posted by Bianca, a resident of Menlo Park, on May 10, 2009 at 12:50 pm

Tunneling is expensive, but that isn't the only problem with it. Some people think tunneling is a better alternative because they think it would be less disruptive than an above-ground solution. The tunneling process, whether by boring (less likely) or cut-and-cover (more likely) is extremely disruptive, very noisy, with an endless stream of heavy trucks moving away tons and tons of dirt. All construction is disruptive, and that includes tunneling. Tunneling would take longer than an above-ground solution, so the construction impact would last longer.

Digging in the ground like that is something you really only want to do when you have no other alternative. We have underground streams, aquifers, and who knows what else might be uncovered when the digging starts. We haven't studied all the geology of the length of the Caltrain right-of-way; tunneling so close to existing residences may cause subsidence and damage the foundations of the houses along the right-of-way. People who think that tunneling would have fewer impacts on our community need to learn a bit more about what a tunnel would really mean.

Some of the "tunnel-or-nothing" crowd are in reality 100% opposed to any HSR, and are trying to derail the process by insisting on a design that is very expensive and perhaps fundamentally flawed in an effort to kill HSR entirely. It may be that a tunnel is appropriate in certain places. We haven't gathered all of that information yet. But a tunnel from San Jose to San Francisco is a non-starter.

Posted by stupid people get stupid answers from egoticstical retread politicians, a resident of the The Greenhouse neighborhood, on May 10, 2009 at 9:07 pm

This has nothing to do with SF=LA HSR in a most cost effective route (Altamont Pass) and everything to do with Kopp and Diridon demanding world wide recognition of HSR stations in SF and SJ named in their honor.

Diridon already has a Caltrain station named after him (SJ).

Doesn't this guy have any scruples about the injury to thousands of Peninsula residents adjacent to the tracks if this boondoggle plows through?

'Bout time some city council member got in Diridon's face instead of being so polite and genuflecting.

Doubtful any council member will follow thru, so looks like it's up to some John/Jane Q. Citizen/Taxpayer.

Anyone out there ready to stand up to big daddy Quentin and slick Rod in a public meeting?

Posted by parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 10, 2009 at 9:50 pm

I hope Morris Brown and Palo Alto city council members, and anyone else in attendance will send letters or emails or phone calls to LaHood and the federal transportation people who are handing out stimulus dollars like halloween candy (laced with pins and needles).

The CHSRA helped by money hungry California politicians, are telling the feds that this route is SHOVEL READY. Peninsual residents need to speak up immediately and tell the Feds that throwing billions on this project will just get them to 'fast track' through the planning and environmental impacts studies, and THAT will just harm everyone. They are throwing gasoline on a fire if they are throwing stimulus dollars at CHSR. They need to know. The people need to tell them. Because our politicians are simply in love with the idea of cash getting pumped in to the state for any reason.

Posted by Mike Cobb, former Mayor, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on May 11, 2009 at 10:27 am

Those who have seen Rod Diridon in action know that he cares not at all about the impacts on the communities that the HSR will rip through (and apart). The simple fact in all of this discussion is that HSR from San San Jose to SF makes no sense at all. SJ to LA ... that makes some sense. The SJ to SF link will exacerbate, not reduce commute problems on the Peninsula. It will transform, in a very negative way, many of our communities, Palo Alto certainly among them. And for what ... to create a 'monument' to Mssrs Diridon and Kopp. As proposed, the HSR link from SJ to SF is like being given a car with square wheels ... with a 'process' whose only outcome will be to (maybe) make the ride less bumpy. Palo Altans, you need to make your voices heard NOW. It is already very late in the game. Contact your councilmembers, Senator Simitian, Supervisor Kniss, Congresswoman Eshoo ... anyone with some influence ... and let them know that we need their voice and their help.

Posted by Concerned But Not Too Much, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on May 11, 2009 at 11:31 am

The smart thing the HSR and city councils along the Caltrans right of way can do is start buying the properties that will be affected. It would quiet many of the most opposed voices, stimulate the local real estate market, and get ahead of inflation on at least this part of the project.

Posted by HSR supporter, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 11, 2009 at 12:41 pm

I hope a small group of vocal discontents in Palo Alto won't derail HSR, which is good for everyone in California (and the U.S.) except for a certain minority directly affected (e.g., residents of Southgate).

"Some of the tunnel-or-nothing crowd are in reality 100% opposed to any HSR." Come on folks, let's be intellectually honest here - you can WAIT for the final analysis, but any common sense intuition will tell you that tunneling is going to be WAY MORE EXPENSIVE than the alternative.

Posted by Anna, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on May 11, 2009 at 12:45 pm

"I hope a small group of vocal discontents in Palo Alto won't derail HSR, which is good for everyone in California (and the U.S.) except for a certain minority directly affected (e.g., residents of Southgate)."

Yes. And slavery was good for everyone except for a certain minority directly affected too (i.e., the slaves).

We had to fight a war over that one.

Posted by eric, a resident of Mountain View, on May 11, 2009 at 3:32 pm

HSRSuporter, funny you should refer to a 'certain minority' being affected by HSR.

Officials at the state and local level seem quite content to, um, railroad low-income powerless families that will suffer the most from this boondoggle (can anyone name a middle class neighborhood where BART isnt underground? A low-income neighborhood where it IS?). The Palo Alto and Mtn View city councils should be ashamed by their own silence on this.

Posted by ellieg, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on May 12, 2009 at 1:19 am

The main problem with building the HSR from San Jose to San Francisco is that we already have a usable and well used train system between the two cities. Caltrain is used daily by thousands of people to commute on the peninsula. With the growing popularity of allowing bicycles on the train, a great deal of local car use is eliminated at both ends of the commute. It is ridiculous to spend the enormous amount of money needed to tear up the old tracks and rebuild four new tracks. It would completely eliminate train service for several years, if not longer. This is in addition to all the other drawbacks of tearing up the adjoining streets, trees, and residences and having a wall dividing the community.

Tunneling would be just as disruptive because enough land to build four tracks would need to be dug up. This would mean that the trees along Alma and possibly Alma itself would be destroyed. Tunneling might possibly damage our underground aquifers (remember we are in a serious drought) and it would almost certainly kill our 3000 year old heritage redwood tree, El Palo Alto. Older trees are very susceptible to root damage and tunneling would certainly damage the roots.

It would be much less expensive to use the federal money to upgrade

Caltrain with improved tracks and electrification. The work could be

done in small increments on the weekend, minimizing the disruption.

The electric connection could be on the ground, eliminating the need for overhead construction that is obtrusive and blighting to the area. Our remaining at grade crossings could be closed and replaced with pedestrian and bicycle overpasses. We already have grade separated crossings at San Antonio, Oregon, and University avenue. The remaining three, Charleston, Meadow, and Churchill, all are routes traveled by school children. Safe overpasses would encourage more bicycling and walking by both children and adults, giving them healthy exercise and helping to curb the long lines of parents picking up their children in front of the schools.

Our main problem is really not long distance travel but local car

traffic. The lines and wait at lights on El Camino and Foothill

Expressway at rush hour are enormous. It took me over an hour to get

from El Camino and Page Mill to Foothill College at rush hour Anything we can do to help reduce local traffic has a much greater environmental effect than this multi-billion dollar boondoggle. Increasing the utility and quality of Caltrain would go a long way to helping us achieve better local transportation.

The best thing for the high speed rail project would be to kill the current plans, and start over with a better route for the whole project. Choosing Pacheco Pass over Altamont is probably the worst part of the problem. This route was was opposed by all the environmental groups in the state, and will cost three or more times as much, because of the extensive tunneling required. That it would benefit San Jose, instead of the communities in the central valley which have millions of people that would benefit, is obviously part of the problem with the whole process.

I am very happy that our state legislators are looking into the process that resulted in these self serving decisions.

And also thank you to Palo alto City Council for joining the lawsuit to stop the expensive and needless extension of the route from San Jose to San Francisco.

The rendering of the 'view' that would replace the trees is completely

depressing and it is the residents that would have to see it, not the

passengers on the train. It is very likely that property would need to be taken by eminent domain, even for tunneling the tracks, as the extra room needed for four tracks would be wider than the existing area of the Caltrain right of way.

I was not able to add the pictures of the rendering of the train station but here is the url;

Web Link

Posted by ellieg, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on May 12, 2009 at 1:27 am

Posted by ellieg, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, 0 minutes ago

The main problem with building the HSR from San Jose to San Francisco is that we already have a usable and well used train system between the two cities. Caltrain is used daily by thousands of people to commute on the peninsula. With the growing popularity of allowing bicycles on the train, a great deal of local car use is eliminated at both ends of the commute. It is ridiculous to spend the enormous amount of money needed to tear up the old tracks and rebuild four new tracks. It would completely eliminate train service for several years, if not longer. This is in addition to all the other drawbacks of tearing up the adjoining streets, trees, and residences and having a wall dividing the community.

Tunneling would be just as disruptive because enough land to build four tracks would need to be dug up. This would mean that the trees along Alma and possibly Alma itself would be destroyed. Tunneling might possibly damage our underground aquifers (remember we are in a serious drought) and it would almost certainly kill our 3000 year old heritage redwood tree, El Palo Alto. Older trees are very susceptible to root damage and tunneling would certainly damage the roots.

It would be much less expensive to use the federal money to upgrade Caltrain with improved tracks and electrification. The work could be done in small increments on the weekend, minimizing the disruption.

The electric connection could be on the ground, eliminating the need for overhead construction that is obtrusive and blighting to the area. Our remaining at grade crossings could be closed and replaced with pedestrian and bicycle overpasses. We already have grade separated crossings at San Antonio, Oregon, and University avenue. The remaining three, Charleston, Meadow, and Churchill, all are routes traveled by school children. Safe overpasses would encourage more bicycling and walking by both children and adults, giving them healthy exercise and helping to curb the long lines of parents picking up their children in front of the schools.

Our main problem is really not long distance travel but local car traffic. The lines and wait at lights on El Camino and Foothill Expressway at rush hour are enormous. It took me over an hour to get from El Camino and Page Mill to Foothill College at rush hour Anything we can do to help reduce local traffic has a much greater environmental effect than this multi-billion dollar boondoggle. Increasing the utility and quality of Caltrain would go a long way to helping us achieve better local transportation.

The best thing for the high speed rail project would be to kill the current plans, and start over with a better route for the whole project. Choosing Pacheco Pass over Altamont is probably the worst part of the problem. This route was was opposed by all the environmental groups in the state, and will cost three or more times as much, because of the extensive tunneling required. That it would benefit San Jose, instead of the communities in the central valley which have millions of people that would benefit, is obviously part of the problem with the whole process.

I am very happy that our state legislators are looking into the process that resulted in these self serving decisions.

And also thank you to Palo alto City Council for joining the lawsuit to stop the expensive and needless extension of the route from San Jose to San Francisco.

The rendering of the 'view' that would replace the trees is completely depressing and it is the residents that would have to see it, not the passengers on the train. It is very likely that property would need to be taken by eminent domain, even for tunneling the tracks, as the extra room needed for four tracks would be wider than the existing area of the Caltrain right of way.

I was not able to add the pictures of the rendering of the train station but here is the url;

Web Link

Report Objectionable Content